sues

Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook has filed a lawsuit arguing that United States President Donald Trump has no power to remove her from office, setting up a legal battle that could reset long-established norms between the president and the central bank.

The lawsuit was filed on Thursday, three days after Trump published a letter saying Cook was removed from her job.

In the lawsuit, Cook argues that Trump violated federal law in attempting to remove her from her position. Under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, presidents may only remove a Federal Reserve governor “for cause”, a high bar generally understood to mean grave misconduct or dereliction of duty.

As the country’s central banking system, the Federal Reserve is considered independent from political branches of government like the presidency or Congress. In theory, that allows it to set monetary policy without political influence.

But concerns about whether the Fed can maintain its independence from the White House under Trump could have a ripple effect throughout the global economy. The US dollar stumbled against other major currencies after Trump first said he would remove Cook.

“President Trump’s attempt to fire Dr Lisa Cook is continuing to add uncertainty and chaos to the US economy,” Sameera Fazili, the former deputy director of the National Economic Council, told Al Jazeera.

Fazili, who previously served as a staff member at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, explained that disruptions at the central bank would negatively impact US businesses.

“An economy needs stable and predictable laws to function smoothly. That’s how you earn investor trust and raise capital for your businesses,” she said, adding: “I applaud Dr Cook for standing up and fighting for the rule of law.”

Cook’s lawsuit is likely headed to the Supreme Court, where a conservative majority has at least tentatively allowed Trump to fire officials from other agencies.

But the court recently signalled that the Federal Reserve may qualify for a rare exception.

In its May decision in the case Trump v Wilcox, the Supreme Court argued that Federal Reserve governors are distinct from other federal employees, because the bank “is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States”.

Mortgage allegations

Still, Trump, a Republican president, has argued that he does have cause to remove Cook from her post.

In his August 25 letter, he accused Cook of committing mortgage fraud in 2021, a year before she joined the Federal Reserve’s governing body.

“The American people must be able to have full confidence in the honesty of the members entrusted with setting policy and overseeing the Federal Reserve,” he wrote.

“In light of your deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter, they cannot and I do not have such confidence in your integrity.”

The Federal Reserve Act does not define what removal “for cause” means, nor does it lay out any standard or procedures for removal.

Trump, however, has argued that Cook’s actions amount to “gross negligence”, though she has denied the allegations.

No president has ever removed a Federal Reserve board member, and the legal standard governing removals from the central bank has never been tested in court.

A Federal Reserve spokesperson said on Tuesday, before the lawsuit was filed, that the bank would abide by any court decision.

Cook was appointed to the Federal Reserve in 2022 by former President Joe Biden, a Democrat, and is the first Black woman to serve on the central bank’s governing body.

Questions about Cook’s mortgages were first raised in August by William Pulte, a Trump appointee who is the director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

Pulte referred the matter to Attorney General Pamela Bondi for investigation.

Cook took out the mortgages in Michigan and Georgia in 2021 when she was an academic, researching and teaching economics.

An official financial disclosure form for 2024 lists three mortgages held by Cook, with two listed as personal residences. Loans for primary residences can carry lower rates than mortgages on investment properties, which are considered riskier by banks.

Some experts have questioned whether transactions that preceded Cook’s appointment to the Federal Reserve would be adequate cause to remove her. After all, Cook’s mortgages were in the public record when she was vetted and confirmed by the Senate in 2022.

Trump has made several allegations of mortgage fraud against perceived political adversaries, including Senator Adam Schiff of California and New York Attorney General Letitia James, both Democrats.

Like Cook, Schiff and James have denied wrongdoing.

Pushing for influence on the Federal Reserve

For her part, Cook said in a statement earlier this week that “no causes exist under the law, and [Trump] has no authority” to remove her from her job.

Her lawyers have also said that Trump’s “demands lack any proper process, basis or legal authority”.

Since Trump took office for a second term in January, critics have accused him of seeking broad powers beyond the presidency, across all branches of government.

He has sought to remove inspectors general and the heads of independent agencies he felt were unfriendly to his policies, despite federal laws that protect their employment.

Such laws require the president to clearly define the cause for removing federal employees. Those causes include neglect of duty, malfeasance, and inefficiency.

While the Federal Reserve Act does not identify those causes in its terms, they could be used as a guide for courts to determine if Trump can legally fire Cook.

In Thursday’s lawsuit, Cook’s lawyers said nothing she has done would amount to such “cause”.

“Neither the type of ‘offense’ the President cited nor the threadbare evidence against Governor Cook would constitute ‘cause’ for removal even if the President’s allegations were true – which they are not,” they wrote.

“The President would not have ‘cause’ to remove a Federal Reserve Governor even if he possessed smoking gun evidence that she jaywalked in college.”

The lawsuit also argues that the president violated Cook’s right to due process by attempting to terminate her position without notice.

Trump has faced other lawsuits for attempting to remove federal officials, including in the Trump v Wilcox case.

That case concerned Gwynne Wilcox, the first Black woman to sit on the National Labor Relations Board, which hears private-sector labour disputes.

Cook’s departure from the Federal Reserve, however, would allow Trump to name his fourth pick to the bank’s seven-member board.

The president has repeatedly berated Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell for not lowering interest rates and for his alleged mishandling of a multibillion-dollar renovation project.

While Trump has previously threatened to remove Powell before his term ends in May, he has since backed away from those remarks.

A full term for a Federal Reserve governor like Cook, meanwhile, is 14 years.

Aug. 27 (UPI) — The NAACP is suing Texas over its new congressional maps, calling them racially gerrymandered in violation of the Voting Rights Act.

The nation’s largest civil rights organization filed the motion Tuesday seeking a preliminary injunction against the new maps in ongoing litigation in a 2021 case it filed against Texas over its previously drawn maps, which it said “intentionally diluted the votes of Black Texans and other Texans of color.”

“The State of Texas is only 40% White but White voters control over 73% of the state’s congressional seats,” Derrick Johnson, president and CEO of the NAACP, said in a statement.

“It’s quite obvious that Texas’ effort to redistrict mid-decade, before next year’s midterm elections, is racially motivated. The state’s intent here is to reduce the members of Congress who represent Black communities, and that in, and of itself, is unconstitutional.”

The NAACP, along with civil rights groups and the Justice Department, under the previous Biden administration, sued Texas in December 2021, alleging Texas’ then newly drawn congressional maps to be in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment.

Based on new census data, Texas had gained 4 million people, 95% of whom were people of color, gaining the state two new congressional House seats. The NAACP argues the new maps based on the new information were gerrymandered as the new seats, despite the demographic shift, were draw to favor Anglo-majority districts.

In March — amid litigation and after President Donald Trump won re-election and returned to the White House — the Justice Department dismissed its claims in the case, the trial for which ended on June 11.

Less than a month afterward, the Justice Department sent Texas a letter arguing that four Democrat-held congressional seats were racially gerrymandered, instructing Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, to redraw them.

Those redrawn maps are expected to give Republicans five additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, which were recently passed by both the Texas state House and Senate.

Democrats have been furious with this change, accusing the Trump administration of attempting a power grab to increase the Republicans’ odds of maintaining control of the congressional branch following next year’s midterm elections.

The NAACP, represented by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, argued in the Tuesday court document that Texas “overtly targeted districts where multiple minority groups together constituted a majority of the voters.”

“Dismantling Congressional districts because of their racial composition is intentional discrimination,” the civil rights group said in the motion.

The civil rights group is asking the court for a permanent injunction against the state from enforcing the alleged gerrymandered maps.

“We now see how far extremist leaders are willing to go to push African Americans back toward a time when we were denied full personhood and equal rights,” NAACP Texas President Gary Bledsoe said in a statement.

“We call on Texans of every background to recognize the dangers of this moment. Our democracy depends on ensuring that every person is counted fully, valued equally and represented fairly.”

Elon Musk on Monday ramped up his legal feud with OpenAI as his companies filed a new lawsuit against OpenAI and Apple accusing both of anticompetitive behavior in the artificial intelligence industry in a growing clash of tech titans.

Apple and OpenAI announced a partnership last year that would allow Apple customers to connect with OpenAI’s chatbot, ChatGPT, on iPhones. Musk’s social media firm X and artificial intelligence company X.AI LLC say that the deal has hindered their ability to compete and has locked up markets to maintain what they describe as Apple and OpenAI’s monopolies.

“Plaintiffs bring this suit to stop Defendants from perpetrating their anticompetitive scheme and to recover billions in damages,” according to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Texas on Monday. Musk’s companies, Bastrop, Texas-based X and Palo Alto-based xAI, are seeking a permanent injunction against Apple and OpenAI and more than $1 billion in damages.

The lawsuit adds to a long-running fight between Musk and OpenAI’s Chief Executive Sam Altman. Musk was an early investor in OpenAI but later left its board and started a rival AI business, xAI. Musk has an ongoing lawsuit against OpenAI and Altman, accusing them of fraud and breach of contract over OpenAI’s efforts to change its corporate structure.

“This latest filing is consistent with Mr Musk’s ongoing pattern of harassment,” OpenAI said in a statement.

Musk companies’ lawsuit claims ChatGPT has at least an 80% market share in the generative AI chatbot market, whereas xAI’s chatbot Grok has just a few percentage points in market share.

“As a result of Apple and OpenAI’s exclusive arrangement, ChatGPT is the only AI chatbot that benefits from billions of user prompts originating from hundreds of millions of iPhones,” according to xAI’s lawsuit. “This makes it hard for competitors of ChatGPT’s generative AI chatbot and super apps powered by generative AI chatbots to scale and innovate.”

xAI has asked to integrate Grok directly with Apple’s software ecosystem, iOS, but hasn’t been allowed to do so, Musk’s companies said in their lawsuit. While users can access other AI chatbots on iPhones by using a web browser or downloading an AI chatbot’s app, “those options do not provide the same level of functionality, usability, integration, or access to user prompts as ChatGPT’s first-party integration with Apple,” the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit also accuses Apple of deprioritizing the AI chatbot apps of OpenAI’s competitors in the App Store.

Apple did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment on the lawsuit.

Earlier this month, Musk said on X that he planned to take legal action against Apple, causing a sparring match on the social media platform between him and OpenAI’s Altman.

“Apple is behaving in a manner that makes it impossible for any AI company besides OpenAI to reach #1 in the App Store, which is an unequivocal antitrust violation,” Musk wrote on Aug. 11.

Altman later posted on X, “This is a remarkable claim given what I have heard alleged that Elon does to manipulate X to benefit himself and his own companies and harm his competitors and people he doesn’t like.”

Apple previously told Bloomberg that it collaborates with many developers “to increase app visibility in rapidly evolving categories” and features thousands of apps in charts, algorithmic recommendations and curated lists by experts using objective criteria.

“The App Store is designed to be fair and free of bias,” Apple told Bloomberg.

Apple has also faced backlash and criticism from some developers and the Department of Justice over the way it operates its App Store. Last year the DOJ sued Apple, accusing it of engaging in practices that prevented other companies from offering apps that compete with Apple’s offerings.

At the time, Apple said that if the government’s lawsuit was successful, it would hurt its ability to create the type of technology people expect from Apple “where hardware, software, and services intersect.”

“It would also set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people’s technology,” Apple said.

Staff writer Queenie Wong and Editorial Library Director Cary Schneider contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — The nation’s capital challenged President Trump’s takeover of its police department in court on Friday, hours after his administration stepped up its crackdown on policing by naming a federal official as the new emergency head of the department, with all the powers of a police chief.

District of Columbia Atty. Gen. Brian Schwalb said in a new lawsuit that Trump is going far beyond his power under the law. Schwalb asked a judge to find that control of the department remains in district hands and sought an emergency restraining order.

“The administration’s unlawful actions are an affront to the dignity and autonomy of the 700,000 Americans who call D.C. home. This is the gravest threat to Home Rule that the District has ever faced, and we are fighting to stop it,” Schwalb said.

The lawsuit comes after Trump Attorney General Pam Bondi said Thursday night that Drug Enforcement Administration boss Terry Cole will assume “powers and duties vested in the District of Columbia Chief of Police.” The Metropolitan Police Department “must receive approval from Commissioner Cole” before issuing any orders, Bondi said. It was unclear where the move left the city’s current police chief, Pamela Smith, who works for the mayor.

Washington Mayor Muriel Bowser pushed back, writing on social media that “there is no statute that conveys the District’s personnel authority to a federal official.”

Justice Department and White House spokespeople did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment on the district’s lawsuit Friday morning.

Chief had agreed to share immigration information

Schwalb had said late Thursday that Bondi’s directive was “unlawful,” arguing it could not be followed by the city’s police force. He wrote in a memo to Smith that “members of MPD must continue to follow your orders and not the orders of any official not appointed by the Mayor,” setting up the legal clash between the heavily Democratic district and the Republican administration.

Bondi’s directive came even after Smith had told MPD officers hours earlier to share information with immigration agencies regarding people not in custody, such as someone involved in a traffic stop or checkpoint. The Justice Department said Bondi disagreed with the police chief’s directive because it allowed for continued enforcement of “sanctuary policies,” which generally limit cooperation by local law enforcement with federal immigration officers.

Bondi said she was rescinding that order as well as other MPD policies limiting inquires into immigration status and preventing arrests based solely on federal immigration warrants. All new directives must now receive approval from Cole, the attorney general said.

The police takeover is the latest move by Trump to test the limits of his legal authorities to carry out his agenda, relying on obscure statutes and a supposed state of emergency to bolster his tough-on-crime message and his plans to speed up the mass deportation of people in the U.S. illegally.

It also marks one of the most sweeping assertions of federal authority over a local government in modern times. While Washington has grappled with spikes in violence and visible homelessness, the city’s homicide rate ranks below those of several other major U.S. cities and the capital is not in the throes of the public safety collapse the administration has portrayed.

Residents are seeing a significant show of force

A population already tense from days of ramp-up has begun seeing more significant shows of force across the city. National Guard troops watched over some of the world’s most renowned landmarks and Humvees took position in front of the busy main train station. Volunteers helped homeless people leave long-standing encampments — to where was often unclear.

Department of Homeland Security police stood outside Nationals Park during a game Thursday between the Washington Nationals and the Philadelphia Phillies. DEA agents patrolled The Wharf, a popular nightlife area, while Secret Service officers were seen in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood.

Bowser, walking a tightrope between the Republican White House and the constituency of her largely Democratic city, was out of town Thursday for a family commitment in Martha’s Vineyard but would be back Friday, her office said.

The uptick in visibility of federal forces around the city, including in many high-traffic areas, has been striking to residents going about their lives. Trump has the power to take over federal law enforcement for 30 days before his actions must be reviewed by Congress, though he has said he’ll re-evaluate as that deadline approaches.

Officers set up a checkpoint in one of D.C.’s popular nightlife areas, drawing protests. Troops were stationed outside the Union Station transportation hub as the 800 Guard members who have been activated by Trump started in on missions that include monument security, community safety patrols and beautification efforts, the Pentagon said.

Troops will assist law enforcement in a variety of roles, including traffic control posts and crowd control, National Guard Major Micah Maxwell said. The Guard members have been trained in de-escalation tactics and crowd control equipment, Maxwell said.

National Guard troops are a semi-regular presence in D.C., typically being used during mass public events like the annual July 4 celebration. They have regularly been used in the past for crowd control in and around Metro stations.

Whitehurst, Khalil and Richer write for the Associated Press.

Aug. 8 (UPI) — The Justice Department filed a lawsuit this week challenging an Oklahoma law that provides eligible undocumented migrants with in-state tuition benefits, the latest litigation targeting migrants’ access to higher education amid the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.

Though announced Thursday, the lawsuit was filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

The law, approved by the state’s legislature in 2007, offers in-state tuition at the 25 state-run colleges and universities to anyone — including undocumented migrants — who graduated from an Oklahoma high school and resided in the state with a parent or legal guardian while attending the state high school for at least two years before graduation.

The lawsuit argues the rule violates two of President Donald Trump‘s executive orders on immigration — one signed Feb. 19 directing federal departments and agencies to ensure no taxpayer-funded benefits go to “unqualified aliens,” and one April 28 ordering “appropriate” actions to end enforcement of laws and practices “favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens,” including those in-state tuition to undocumented migrants.

The Justice Department sayd that the law favors undocumented migrants over out-of-state Americans, calling it “unequal treatment,” and argues it violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which holds federal law takes precedence precedence over state laws.

Prosecutors are asking the court to declare the law unconstitutional and issue a permanent injunction against its enforcement.

The state’s Republican attorney general, Gentner Drummond, has filed a motion in support of the Trump administration lawsuit, saying Tuesday marked “the end of a longstanding exploitation of Oklahoma taxpayers.”

“Rewarding foreign nationals who are in our country illegally with lower tuition costs that are not made available to out-of-state American citizens is not only wrong — it is discriminatory and unlawful,” Drummond said in a statement.

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has led a renewed crackdown on immigration, seeking to conduct mass deportations and limiting the protections of migrants already in the country.

This is the fourth lawsuit since since June challenging state laws offering in-state tuition or tuition benefits to migrants that are unavailable to out-of-state-Americans.

In early June, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against a similar Texas law. As in Oklahoma, the Republican-led state sided with the Trump administration, and the two reached an agreement to halt its enforcement.

Similar lawsuits have also been filed in Kentucky and Minnesota.

Florida ended in-state tuition for undocumented migrants in February.

According to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal, 23 states and Washington, D.C., provide in-state tuition to undocumented students. Of those, 18 and D.C. provide access to state financial aid.

Stanford University’s student newspaper is suing the Trump administration, claiming the threat to deport foreign students for speaking out against Israel’s handling of the war in Gaza is chilling free speech.

That threat is hampering the paper’s ability to cover campus demonstrations and to get protesters to speak on the record, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court in Northern California.

Some Stanford Daily writers, who are foreigners in the country on student visas, have even turned down assignments to write about unrest in the Middle East because they’re afraid they’ll be deported. Writers have also asked the paper to remove previously published stories from its website, citing the same concerns, the lawsuit says.

“In the United States of America, no one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,” the newspaper’s lawyers wrote in their complaint.

The suit accuses Trump administration officials, specifically Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Kristin Noem, of placing their statutory authority to deport a foreign visa holder whose beliefs they deem un-American ahead of the constitutional right — guaranteed by the 1st Amendment— to free speech.

“When a federal statute collides with First Amendment rights,” the newspaper’s lawyers wrote, “the Constitution prevails.”

Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, scoffed at the lawsuit, calling it “baseless.”

“There is no room in the United States for the rest of the world’s terrorist sympathizers, and we are under no obligation to admit them or let them stay here,” she said in a statement.

The lawsuit — which was filed by the 133-year-old student newspaper, not by the university itself — is the most recent salvo in an increasingly bitter fight between Trump and many of the nation’s elite universities. The president has made clear he sees top schools as hotbeds of liberal ideology and breeding grounds for anti-American sentiment.

His weapon of choice is to threaten to withhold billions of dollars in federal research grants from institutions that refuse to adopt policies on issues such as diversity, transgender rights and Israel that fall in line with his Make America Great Again ideology.

Critics call Trump’s campaign an attack on academic freedom, but fearing massive budget cuts, several Ivy League schools — including the University of Pennsylvania, Columbia and Brown — have recently cut deals with the Trump administration in an attempt to limit the damage.

Stanford announced this week that it will be forced to lay off hundreds of employees as a result of cuts to research funding and changes to federal tax laws.

The Stanford Daily’s lawsuit focuses on two unnamed students, John and Jane Doe, who the paper’s lawyers say began self-censoring out of a well-founded fear of having their visas revoked and being deported.

Rubio has claimed that the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 allows the secretary of State to revoke a noncitizen’s legal status if it is decided the person’s actions or statements “compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.”

Rubio used that interpretation to justify the March arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, a legal U.S. resident and pro-Palestinian activist at Columbia University who was held in a Louisiana jail before a federal judge ordered his release.

The complaint cites the cases of two other foreign students — one at Columbia and one at Tufts — who were arrested for participating in pro-Palestinian campus demonstrations.

At Stanford, the plaintiff referred to as Jane Doe was a member of the group Students for Justice in Palestine. She has published online commentary accusing Israel of committing genocide and perpetuating apartheid, according to the lawsuit. She has also used the slogan, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” which has become a flash point in the Israel-Gaza debate.

Referencing the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea — which includes Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip — the slogan is viewed as a call for freedom and self-determination by Palestinians. To many Israelis, it sounds like a call for their total destruction.

As a result, Doe’s profile appeared on the Canary Mission, a pro-Israel website that creators say is devoted to outing “hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews.” Department of Homeland Security officials have acknowledged they consult the website’s profiles — most of which are of students and faculty at elite universities — for information on people worthy of investigation.

As a result, since March, Jane Doe has deleted her social media accounts and has “refrained from publishing and voicing her true opinions regarding Palestine and Israel,” the lawsuit claims.

John Doe has participated in pro-Palestine demonstrations, has accused Israel of genocide and chanted, “From the river to the sea.” But after the Trump administration started targeting campus demonstrators for deportation, he “refrained from publishing a study containing criticism of Israel’s actions in Gaza,” according to the lawsuit.

Unlike Jane Doe, John has since resumed public criticism of Israel despite the threat of deportation, according to the lawsuit.

BBC

Claimed losses

‘Startling’

A former labor relations employee at Netflix is suing the company, claiming she was wrongfully terminated after raising concerns over her superiors’ discrimination against women of color and allegations of sexual harassment.

The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleges that the employee’s managers broke laws and policies that protect employees from race- and gender-based discrimination, and from retaliation for reporting alleged discrimination or harassment.

Nhu-Y Phan was hired at Netflix as legal counsel in labor relations in May 2021. She was fired due to “unspecified performance issues” in September 2024, her lawsuit said. According to the complaint, Phan had never been subject to any discipline and had received overwhelmingly positive performance reviews and feedback throughout her time at the company.

She is seeking punitive damages, emotional distress damages, past and future lost income and other forms of relief, as well as a jury trial.

A Netflix spokesperson said in a brief statement the claims outlined in the suit “lack merit and we intend to defend this matter vigorously.”

For the first year of her Netflix career, Phan was supervised by Ted Sinclair, who is named as a defendant in the suit. Phan alleges that Sinclair repeatedly excluded her and other women of color on her team from professional opportunities that he offered to white colleagues, and that he “encouraged a white employee” to take credit for her work.

Phan made multiple verbal and written complaints about this unequal treatment, including through meetings with both the human resources department and with Sinclair directly, but was still denied opportunities, the lawsuit said. She asked to be removed from Sinclair’s direct supervision in the summer of 2022.

Later, a female colleague confided in Phan, alleging that her new supervior, Jonah Cozien, was sexually harassing her, the complaint said. Cozien is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Phan reported the behavior to human resources, and after doing so, Cozien became “frequently hostile” toward her, limiting her professional opportunities and giving her critical feedback despite never having provided feedback before she made the report, according to the suit.

Sinclair and Cozien did not immediately respond to requests for comment, and their lawyers could not be identified.

After Phan was fired, her lawyers say Netflix filed a lawsuit against her to compel arbitration. Brian Olney, one of the attorneys from Pasadena-based Hadsell Stormer Renick & Dai who is representing Phan, said forcing her into arbitration proceedings is a violation of the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act, which became law in 2022.

Because records in arbitration are protected, employers that have arbitration clauses in their employment contracts can avoid public attention on cases involving sexual harassment and assault. The House Judiciary Committee said passing the law would bring justice to victims who were “locked out of the court system and are forced to settle their disputes against companies in a private system of arbitration that often favors the company over the individual.”

“Netflix fired Nhu Phan and tried to force her into secretive arbitration proceedings to silence her voice,” Olney said in a statement. “With her lawsuit, she is standing up to this corporate bully and their outrageous and despicable conduct.”

July 25 (UPI) — The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against New York City, challenging its so-called sanctuary city policies, as the Trump administration continues to crack down on immigration.

The lawsuit was filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York asking it to declare the city’s sanctuary policies in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the constitution, which states that federal laws take precedence over conflicting state laws.

“New York City has released thousands of criminals on the streets to commit violent crimes against law-abiding citizens due to sanctuary city policies, Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement.

“If New York City won’t stand up for the safety of its citizens, we will.”

So-called sanctuary cities are those that limit the cooperation of local and state law enforcement with federal immigration officers. The non-profit, nonpartisan American Immigration Council states such policies “promote a greater level of trust and cooperation” between local law enforcement and the communities they police, while opponents say they interfere with federal immigration enforcement and prevent immigration agents from doing their job.

“New York City has long been at the vanguard of interfering with enforcing this country’s immigration laws,” federal prosecutors said in the lawsuit Thursday. “It’s history as a sanctuary city dates back to 1989, and its efforts to thwart federal immigration enforcement have only intensified since.”

New York City Council balked at the lawsuit, calling it a distraction from the fact that “cities with sanctuary laws are safer than those without them.”

“When residents feel comfortable reporting crime and cooperating with local law enforcement, we are all safer, something both Republicans and Democratic mayors of New York City have recognized,” the council said in a statement online.

“It is the Trump administration indiscriminately targeting people at civil court hearings, detaining high school students and separating families that makes our city and nation less safe.”

Sanctuary cities have been a target of Republicans who view them as a hindrance to the rule of law while protecting undocumented migrants, while Democrats see them as protecting immigrant communities and public trust.

There are dozens of sanctuary cities and regions throughout the United States, And President Donald Trump has sought to reduce that number.

On April 28, he signed an executive order threatening federal funding to sanctuary cities and directing the Justice Department and Homeland Security to uncover which policies violate federal law.

The Justice Department has already brought several such lawsuit against so-called sanctuary states and cities, including Los Angeles and the states fo New York, Colorado and Illinois.

DENVER — Colorado’s Democratic attorney general on Tuesday sued a sheriff’s deputy for allegedly helping federal immigration agents find and arrest a college student who had an expired visa.

Atty. Gen. Phil Weiser also disclosed that his office is investigating whether other law enforcement officers on a regional drug task force the deputy worked on have been sharing information to help federal agents make immigration arrests in violation of state law limiting cooperation in immigration enforcement. The federal government has sued Colorado over such laws.

On June 5, Mesa County Deputy Alexander Zwinck allegedly shared the driver’s license, vehicle registration and insurance information of the 19-year-old nursing student in a Signal chat used by task force members, according to the lawsuit. The task force includes officers who work for federal Homeland Security Investigations, which can enforce immigration laws, the lawsuit said.

After federal immigration officers told him in the chat that the student did not have a criminal history but had an expired visa, Zwinck allegedly provided them with their location and told her to wait with him in his patrol car for about five minutes, asking about her accent and where she was born. He let her go with a warning and gave federal agents a description of her vehicle and told which direction she was headed so they could arrest her, the lawsuit said.

When Zwinck was told of the arrest, the lawsuit said he congratulated the federal agents, saying “rgr, nice work.” The following day, one federal immigration agent praised Zwinck’s work in the chat, saying he should be named ”interdictor of the year” for the removal division of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Zwinck is also accused of violating the law again on June 10 by providing immigration officers with the photo of the license of another driver who had overstayed his visa, information about the person’s vehicle and directions to help them arrest the driver. After being told that immigration officers “would want him,” Zwinck replied that “We better get some bitchin (sic) Christmas baskets from you guys,” the lawsuit said.

The Mesa County Sheriff’s Office declined to comment on the lawsuit. Spokesperson Molly Casey said the office is about a week away from finishing its internal investigation into the student’s traffic stop and plans to issue a statement after it is finished.

A working telephone number could not be found for Zwinck, who was placed on paid leave during the sheriff’s office’s investigation. Casey declined to provide the name of an attorney who might be able to speak on his behalf.

The sheriff’s office previously announced that all its employees have been removed from the Signal group chat.

Weiser said he was acting under a new state law that bars employees of local governments from sharing identifying information about people with federal immigration officials, a recent expansion of state laws limiting cooperation in immigration cases. Previously, the ban on sharing personal identifying information only applied to state agencies, but state lawmakers voted to expand that to local government agencies earlier this year.

“One of our goals in enforcing this law is to make clear that this law is not optional. This is a requirement and it’s one that we take seriously,” he said.

The law allows violators to be fined but Weiser’s lawsuit only seeks a judge’s order declaring that Zwinck’s actions violated the law and barring him from such actions in the future.

Slevin writes for the Associated Press.

July 22 (UPI) — A coalition of school districts, teachers’ unions, nonprofits and parents has filed a lawsuit accusing the Trump administration of illegally withholding nearly $7 billion in Congress-approved education funding.

In the lawsuit filed Monday, the coalition asks a U.S. District Court in Rhode Island to compel the Department of Education and the White House Office of Management and Budget to release the funding, which supports low-income students, teacher training, English learners, immigrant students and after-school programs.

According to the lawsuit, the Department of Education is required to disburse Elementary and Secondary Education Act funds on July 1. But on June 30, states were informed that the department would not be disbursing nearly $7 billion in ESEA funds and that a new policy had been adopted requiring a review to first be conducted to ensure the money is spent “in accordance with the president’s priorities,” the lawsuit states, citing the letter.

The Trump administration provided the states with neither a timeline nor assurances that the funds would be released, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit comes as the Trump administration has been dismantling the Department of Education, in line with President Donald Trump‘s March executive order seeking to shutter the department and return its authorities to the states.

Last week, the conservative-leaning Supreme Court approved Trump’s mass firings at the department. At the same time, 24 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration over its freezing of billions of dollars in education funds.

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten described the Trump administration’s freeze on Monday as throwing a “monkey wrench” at millions of U.S. educators.

“These are long-term, school-based programs, already passed by Congress and signed into law by the president,” she said in a statement.

“Since day one, the Trump administration has attacked public education, undermining opportunity in America. Now it is trying to lawlessly defund education unilaterally through rampant government overreach. It’s not only morally repugnant: the administration lacks the legal right to sacrifice kids’ futures at the alter of ideology.”

Among the plaintiffs are Alaska’s largest school district, Anchorage School District; Cincinnati Public Schools and Fairbanks North Star Borough, among others.

California and a coalition of other liberal-led states sued the Trump administration Monday over new rules barring undocumented immigrants from accessing more than a dozen federally funded “public benefit” programs, arguing the restrictions target working mothers and their children in violation of federal law.

President Trump and others in his administration have defended the restrictions as necessary to protect services for American citizens — including veterans — and reduce incentives for illegal immigration into the country.

One of the programs facing new restrictions is Head Start, which provided some 800,000 low-income infants, toddlers and preschoolers with child care, nutrition and health assistance.

Others include short-term shelters for homeless people, survivors of domestic violence and at-risk youth; emergency shelters for people during extreme weather conditions; soup kitchens, community food banks and other food support services for the elderly, such as Meals on Wheels; healthcare services for those with mental illness and substance abuse issues; and other adult education programs.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office said states have been allowed to extend such programs to undocumented immigrant families at least since 1997, and the Trump administration’s “abrupt reversal of nearly three decades of precedent” amounted to a “cruel” and costly attack on some of the nation’s most vulnerable residents.

“This latest salvo in the President’s inhumane anti-immigration campaign primarily goes after working moms and their young children,” Bonta said. “We’re not talking about waste, fraud, and abuse, we’re talking about programs that deliver essential childcare, healthcare, nutrition, and education assistance, programs that have for decades been open to all.”

The lawsuit — which California filed along with 19 other states and the District of Columbia — contends the new restrictions were not only initiated in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner and without proper notice to the states, but will end up costing the states hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

Bonta’s office said “requiring programs to expend resources to implement systems and train staff to verify citizenship or immigration status will impose a time and resource burden on programs already struggling to operate on narrow financial margins.”

It also said that the impact of the changes in California, which has a huge immigrant population compared to other states, would be “devastating — and immediate.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.

The states’ claims run counter to arguments from Trump, his administration and other anti-immigration advocates that extending benefits to undocumented immigrants encourages illegal immigration into the country, costs American taxpayers money and makes it harder for U.S. citizens to receive services.

About a month after taking office, Trump issued an executive order titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders,” in which he said his administration would “uphold the rule of law, defend against the waste of hard-earned taxpayer resources, and protect benefits for American citizens in need, including individuals with disabilities and veterans.”

The order required the heads of federal agencies to conduct sweeping reviews of their benefits programs and move to restrict access for undocumented immigrants, in part to “prevent taxpayer resources from acting as a magnet and fueling illegal immigration to the United States.”

Trump cited the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 as providing clear restrictions against non-citizens participating in federally funded benefits programs, and accused past administrations of undermining “the principles and limitations” of that law.

Past administrations have provided exemptions to the law, namely by allowing immigrants to access certain “life or safety” programs — including those now being targeted for new restrictions.

In response to Trump’s order, various federal agencies — including Health and Human Services, Labor, Education and Agriculture — issued notices earlier this month announcing their reinterpretation of the 1996 law as excluding “noncitizens” from more programs, including previously exempted ones.

“For too long, the government has diverted hardworking Americans’ tax dollars to incentivize illegal immigration,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. “Today’s action changes that — it restores integrity to federal social programs, enforces the rule of law, and protects vital resources for the American people.”

“Under President Trump’s leadership, hardworking American taxpayers will no longer foot the bill for illegal aliens to participate in our career, technical, or adult education programs or activities,” said Education Secretary Linda McMahon.

“By ensuring these programs serve their intended purpose, we’re protecting good-paying jobs for American workers and reaffirming this Administration’s commitment to securing our borders and ending illegal immigration,” said Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer.

The Department of Agriculture also said it would apply new restrictions on benefits for undocumented immigrants, including under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. However, the states’ lawsuit does not challenge the Department of Agriculture, noting that “many USDA programs are subject to an independent statutory requirement to provide certain benefits programs to everyone regardless of citizenship,” which the department’s notice said would continue to apply.

Joining Bonta in filing the lawsuit were the attorneys general of the Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia.

WASHINGTON — President Trump sued Dow Jones and its owner, Rupert Murdoch, for libel on Friday, striking back against the publication of a bombshell story in the Wall Street Journal alleging the president sent a sordid letter to notorious sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein in the early 2000s.

The Journal, a Dow Jones publication, reported Thursday that Trump sent a raunchy 50th birthday card to Epstein that included a sketch of a naked woman, featuring breasts and a squiggly “Donald” signature mimicking pubic hair.

The paper said it had reviewed copies of a collection of lewd letters that Epstein’s longtime companion, Ghislaine Maxwell, gathered from Epstein’s friends and colleagues and compiled in an album to mark his 2003 birthday.

“We have just filed a POWERHOUSE Lawsuit against everyone involved in publishing the false, malicious, defamatory, FAKE NEWS ‘article’ in the useless ‘rag’ that is, The Wall Street Journal,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Friday, adding that the suit also targets Murdoch and the reporters on the story.

The suit comes amid renewed questions over the nature of Trump’s years-long friendship with Epstein, the late and disgraced financier whose sprawling sex trafficking ring victimized more than 200 women and girls.

On Friday, the top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee said that FBI officials reviewing more 100,000 records from the Epstein investigation in March were directed to flag any documents that mentioned Trump.

In a letter to leadership of the Justice Department, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said his office “was told that these personnel were instructed to ‘flag’ any records in which President Trump was mentioned.”

Trump had already been facing mounting pressure from his MAGA base to publicly release Justice Department files from the case of Epstein.

Trump ordered Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi to reverse course on a recent decision to close the case and unseal grand jury testimony. The Justice Department filed a motion to begin that process on Friday afternoon.

“Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval,” Trump announced Thursday on Truth Social. “This SCAM, perpetuated by the Democrats, should end, right now!”

The Department of Justice and FBI declared earlier this month in a memo that Epstein’s case was closed and his 2019 death in a New York city jail was a suicide. But Bondi, a Trump appointee and arch loyalist, immediately agreed Thursday to Trump’s new demand.

“President Trump — we are ready to move the court tomorrow to unseal the grand jury transcripts,” Bondi wrote on X.

It remains to be seen if Trump and Bondi will persuade a federal judge in New York to release the grand jury transcripts. Such documents are typically not made public and released only under narrowly defined circumstances.

Trump and Epstein became friends in the 1980s.

“I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy,” Mr. Trump told New York magazine, in 2002, noting that Epstein was “a lot of fun to be with” and “likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.”

But their friendship apparently broke down in 2008 after Epstein was convicted of child sexual offenses. Their relationship — and the possibility of Trump’s involvement in Epstein’s crimes — has been scrutinized ever since.

The Epstein case has riveted Trump’s Republican base, largely because of the multimillionaire financier’s connections to rich and powerful people they suspect were involved in his child sex trafficking.

But releasing the files is not entirely up to Trump, even if he wanted to.

“You’ve got decades’ worth of materials,” said David Weinstein, a Miami defense attorney and former federal prosecutor, who said the disclosure of grand jury information is governed by federal rules and cannot be released without a court order.

Even if material does get released, it will pertain only to Epstein and Maxwell’s direct activities — and will be much more limited than the volume of investigative materials, including witness interviews, emails, videos and photos that otherwise exist.

Additionally, “there’s a lot of redactions that will have to be made,” Weinstein said, noting the number of individuals who might have been associated with Epstein during the investigation but were not themselves suspected or charged with crimes. “You’ve seen some of that already in the civil cases that were filed, and where courts have said, ‘No, this is what can be put on the docket.’”

After the Department of Justice dropped the case, many of Trump’s most vocal allies, such as U.S. Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.), openly dissented from the administration and called for the release of all files.

Earlier this week, Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie introduced the bipartisan Epstein Files Transparency Act, which would require Bondi to make public all unclassified records, documents and investigative materials that the Department of Justice holds on the Epstein case.

“We all deserve to know what’s in the Epstein files, who’s implicated, and how deep this corruption goes,” Massie said in a statement. “Americans were promised justice and transparency. We’re introducing a discharge petition to force a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on releasing the COMPLETE files.”

A poll conducted by the Economist/YouGov this month found that 83% of Trump’s 2024 supporters favor the government releasing all material related to the Epstein case.

Wilner reported from Washington, Jarvie from Atlanta. Times staff writer Clara Harter contributed to this report.

US Justice Department files a motion in Manhattan federal court to unseal grand jury transcripts in the Epstein cases.

United States President Donald Trump has filed a defamation lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal publication and its owners, including media magnate Rupert Murdoch, seeking at least $10bn in damages over the publication of a bombshell report on the president’s friendship with the infamous high-society sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump filed the lawsuit in federal court in the Southern District of Florida on Friday, as he attempts to prevent a growing scandal around the Epstein case from spreading further and threatening to cause him serious political damage.

Trump also instructed the US Justice Department to file a motion in Manhattan federal court to unseal grand jury transcripts in the Epstein case and that of his former associate, Ghislaine Maxwell, who in 2021 was convicted of five federal charges related to her role in Epstein’s sexual abuse of underage girls.

In the defamation lawsuit, Trump accuses Dow Jones, News Corp, Murdoch and two Wall Street Journal reporters of acting with malicious intent that caused him overwhelming financial and reputational harm. Dow Jones, the parent company of the newspaper, is a division of News Corp.

Before filing the case, Trump wrote on Friday morning on his social media platform Truth Social: “I look forward to getting Rupert Murdoch to testify in my lawsuit against him and his ‘pile of garbage’ newspaper, the WSJ. That will be an interesting experience!!!”

Representatives of Dow Jones, News Corp and Murdoch have yet to comment on the case.

Trump once considered Epstein a friend, and the controversy surrounding the now deceased high-profile figure, who took his own life in prison, has prompted conspiracy theories, especially among the far-right supporters of the US president.

Trump supporters were enraged last week when US Attorney General Pam Bondi reversed course on the president’s election campaign pledge to release court documents that some believed contained damning revelations about Epstein and his alleged elite clientele.

Trump denies penning lewd Epstein birthday message

On Thursday, the Wall Street Journal reported that a letter bearing Trump’s signature was sent to Epstein for one of his birthday celebrations.

The newspaper said the letter contained a lewd handwritten reference to a woman, with the message: “Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret,” and featured the signature “Donald”.

Following publication, Trump denied sending the letter to Epstein and lashed out at the newspaper.

Epstein died by suicide in a New York jail cell in 2019. Many among Trump’s base of supporters believe the government is covering up Epstein’s ties to the rich and powerful, and some do not believe he died by his own hand.

A Justice Department memo released on July 7 concluded that Epstein killed himself and said there was “no incriminating client list” or evidence that Epstein blackmailed prominent people.

However, Bondi, the US attorney general, had pledged months ago to release major revelations about Epstein, including “a lot of names” and “a lot of flight logs”, before reversing course. On Friday, Bondi’s Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche said public interest in the Epstein case had prompted the Justice Department to file a request with the court to unseal transcripts of the case.

Trump, who was photographed with Epstein multiple times in social settings in the 1990s and early 2000s, told reporters in 2019 that he ended his relationship with Epstein before his legal troubles became apparent.

NEW YORK — New York City’s former interim police commissioner is suing Mayor Eric Adams and his top deputies, accusing them of operating the NYPD as a “criminal enterprise.”

In a federal racketeering lawsuit filed Wednesday, the ex-commissioner, Thomas Donlon, alleges Adams and his inner circle showered unqualified loyalists with promotions, buried allegations of misconduct and gratuitously punished whistleblowers.

It is the latest in a series of recent lawsuits by former NYPD leaders describing a department ruled by graft and cronyism, with swift repercussions for those who questioned the mayor’s allies.

In a statement, City Hall spokesperson Kayla Mamelak Altus called the allegations “baseless,” blasting Donlon as a “disgruntled former employee who — when given the opportunity to lead the greatest police department in the world — proved himself to be ineffective.”

Donlon, a longtime FBI official, was appointed last fall by Adams to stabilize a department shaken by federal investigations and high-profile resignations.

He stepped down less than a month into the job, after federal authorities searched his home for decades-old documents that he said were unrelated to his work at the department.

During his brief tenure, Donlon said he uncovered “systemic corruption and criminal conduct” enabled by Adams and carried out by his hand-picked confidants who operated outside the department’s standard chain of command.

Their alleged corruption triggered a “massive, unlawful transfer of public wealth,” the suit alleges, through unearned salary increases, overtime payments, pension enhancement and other benefits.

In one case, Donlon said he caught the department’s former top spokesperson, Tarik Sheppard, improperly using his rubber signature to give himself a raise and promotion. When Donlon confronted him, Sheppard allegedly threatened to kill him.

Later, when Donlon’s wife was involved in a minor car accident, Sheppard leaked personal family details to the press, according to the lawsuit.

Sheppard, who left the department in May, did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

The lawsuit also accuses police leaders of blocking internal investigations requested by Donlon and refusing to cooperate with federal authorities. And it outlines several instances in which officers with little experience — but close connections to Adams’ allies — received promotions, sometimes in exchange for favors.

The lawsuit names Adams and eight current and former high-ranking NYPD officials, including Chief of Department John Chell and Deputy Mayor Kaz Daughtry.

It calls for a federal takeover of the NYPD and unspecified damages for Donlon, whose professional reputation was “deliberately destroyed,” according to the suit.

Before joining the NYPD, Donlon spent decades working on terrorism cases for the FBI, including the investigation into the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center. He also led New York state’s Office of Homeland Security before going into the private sector security industry.

He was replaced as commissioner by Jessica Tisch, who has pledged to restore trust within the department. But as Adams seeks reelection on a platform touting decreases in crime, he now faces renewed scrutiny over his management of the police force.

Last week, four other former high-ranking New York City police officials filed separate lawsuits against Adams and his top deputies, alleging a culture of rampant corruption and bribes that preceded Donlon’s appointment.

In response to that suit, a spokesperson for Adams said the administration “holds all city employees — including leadership at the NYPD — to the highest standards.”

Offenhartz writes for the Associated Press.

California officials on Monday announced that the state is suing the Trump administration for holding back an estimated $939 million in education funds from the state — and about $6.8 billion nationwide — that school districts had expected to begin receiving on July 1, calling the action “unconstitutional, unlawful and arbitrary.”

The funding, already appropriated by Congress, supports programs to help students who are learning English and also those from migrant families. The money also boosts teacher training, after-school programs and classroom technology. The impact on Los Angeles Unified — the nation’s second-largest school system — was estimated by Supt. Alberto Carvalho to be at least $110.2 million.

California and three other Democratic-led states are taking the lead on the lawsuit on behalf of 23 states with Democratic attorneys general and the Democratic governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, which have Republican attorneys general. The suit was to be filed Monday in federal court in Rhode Island.

On Monday morning, Trump administration officials had not yet had an opportunity to review the lawsuit, but they have said no final decision has been made on the release of the withheld funds. The administration has cited alleged instances in which some of this money has been used in ways contrary to its policies. One example is the “separate and segregated academic instruction to new English learners,” according to a Trump administration official speaking not for attribution.

The Trump administration has tried to shut down — and often penalize — efforts to promote racial diversity, which it views as a form of discrimination and also has focused on controversies over LGBTQ+ issues. It also opposes what it views as advocacy and support for immigrants who lack legal status to live in the United States.

Although the held-back funds make up less than 1% of California’s education budget, they have an outsize cumulative effect. And they involve dollars that already have been accounted for in terms of staff hired and programs planned.

“With no rhyme or reason, the Trump Administration abruptly froze billions of dollars in education funding just weeks before the start of the school year,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “In doing so, it has threatened the existence of programs that provide critical after school and summer learning opportunities, that teach English to students, and that provide educational technology to our classrooms.”

The complaint argues that the Constitution does not give the executive branch power “to unilaterally refuse to spend appropriations that were passed by both houses of Congress and were signed into law.”

The lawsuit is being led by the attorneys general of Massachusetts, Colorado and Rhode Island. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis spoke of the issue at a webinar last week featuring activists and public officials.

“With many teachers not knowing whether to report to duty — that are funded by these streams — this is a very last minute, opaque decision to withhold billions of dollars from our schools,” said Polis, whose state was expecting to receive an estimated $80 million on July 1. “Every single school district in the country is impacted to some degree by this freeze, risking services like counseling, supporting students, teacher training — all investments that help students succeed.”

“These are funds that schools have already budgeted for — because the funding was already committed — and schools now have to make impossible decisions here just in the 11th hour, days or weeks before people were scheduled to report to work.”

Funding freeze blamed for ‘chaos’

The held-back funds are tied to programs that, in some cases, have received these dollars for decades. Each year the U.S. Department of Education makes around 25% of the funds available to states on or about July 1. This permits school districts to begin or continue their efforts in these areas.

“The plaintiff states have complied with the funding conditions set forth under the law and have state plans that the Department of Education has already approved,” according to a statement from Bonta’s office.

This year, instead of distributing the funding, the U.S. Department of Education notified school districts and state education offices, on June 30, that it would not be “obligating funds” for the affected programs.

In its 84-word communication to states, the administration listed the programs by their federal designation, including Title III-A, which supports students who are learning English. Also listed was Title I-C, which aims to help the children of migrant workers overcome learning challenges. Both programs had all their funds withheld.

Other similarly curtailed programs provide training for teachers and administrators; enhance the use of technology for academic achievement and digital literacy, and fund before- and after-school and summer programs.

“This funding freeze has immediately thrown into chaos plans for the upcoming academic year,” according to Bonta’s office. “Local education agencies have approved budgets, developed staffing plans and signed contracts to provide vital educational services under these grants.”

Los Angeles Unified plans to carry affected programs using district reserves, but this money was already designated for other uses over the long term. Ultimately, hundreds of positions are funded by the estimated $110.2 million at stake.

The greatest impact would be seen once schools begin to open across the nation in August, but there have been immediate effects.

The Thomasville Community Resource Center in Georgia ended its summer program three weeks early, affecting more than 300 children in two counties. In Missouri, the Laclede Literacy Council laid off 16 of 17 staff members after adult education funds were held back.

Texas is estimated to be short approximately $660 million in expected education funding, according to the Texas Standard news site. The freeze particularly affects students learning English, nearly one in four Texas students. During the 2024-25 school year, Texas received more than $132 million from the federal government to support these students.

A rising mountain of litigation

The Trump administration action — and the litigation that has followed — represent the latest of many conflicts over funding and policy with California.

Last week, it was the Trump administration that initiated litigation, suing California for allowing transgender athletes to compete on school sports teams that match their gender identity. The administration alleges that state officials are violating federal civil rights law by discriminating against women, a legal action that threatens billions of dollars in federal education funds.

In line with California law, state education policy specifically allows athletic participation based on a student’s gender identity.

In that litigation, the amount of funding that the Trump administration asserts to be at stake is staggering, with federal officials citing a figure of $44.3 billion in funding that California was allotted for the current year, including $3.8 billion not yet sent out — money that is immediately endangered.

“Potentially, all federal dollars to California public entities are at risk,” said a senior official with the U.S. Department of Education, who spoke on a not-for-attribution basis.

Separately, the department has canceled or modified more than $1 billion in contracts and grants “based on the inclusion of illegal DEI or being out of alignment with Administration priorities,” said spokesperson Madi Biedermann, alluding to programs categorized as including “diversity, equity and inclusion” components.

Altogether, California is involved in more than two dozens lawsuits opposing Trump administration actions.

“Taken together with his other attacks on education, President Trump seems comfortable risking the academic success of a generation to further his own misguided political agenda,” Bonta said. “But as with so many of his other actions, this funding freeze is blatantly illegal, and we’re confident the court will agree.”

The lawsuits against the Trump administration have resulted in a multitude of restraining orders, but have not halted all major Trump actions related to education and other areas.

Trump has insisted that he wants to return education to the states and cut wasteful and ineffective spending. He also has tried to exert greater federal control in education over so-called culture-war issues.

Merit Street Media, the TV network launched last year by talk show host Phil McGraw, has filed for bankruptcy protection from creditors and is suing its distribution partner, Trinity Broadcasting Network.

McGraw’s company filed the suit Thursday in U.S. Bankruptcy Court claiming Fort Worth-based Christian media firm Trinity, or TBN, failed to meet its obligations to provide studio space and secure TV stations and pay TV distributors to carry Merit.

McGraw, who hosted the successful syndicated talk show “Dr. Phil” for 21 years, entered a joint venture in 2023 with Trinity, which agreed to carry Merit on its TV stations across the country and provide production services.

But according to the suit, McGraw is funding the struggling venture out of his pocket — shelling out $25 million over six months. The company laid off 40 employees in June and had to terminate its TV deal with Professional Bull Riders after failing to pay its rights fee.

Merit Street’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing lists the company’s liabilities at $100 million to $500 million. The document, filed in Texas, gives the same range for the value of Merit Street’s assets. Like TBN, Merit Street is based in Fort Worth.

TBN did not respond to a request for comment on the suit.

Merit Street carries “Dr. Phil Primetime,” in which the host delivers right-of-center political commentary as well as guest interviews. The program was put on summer hiatus when the June layoffs were announced.

McGraw recently attracted attention when the show had a camera embedded with Immigration and Customs Enforcement during immigration raids in Los Angeles.

McGraw, once a practicing psychologist, became a self-help guru propelled to fame by Oprah Winfrey, who hired him to help prepare her for a libel case brought by the Texas Beef Group in 1996. Since leaving his daily talk show, he has emerged as a political commentator who is supportive of President Trump.

Merit also has a nightly newscast and a true crime program featuring veteran legal commentator Nancy Grace.

The lawsuit claims Merit’s operations were hampered by TBN’s contracted technical services, which it described as “comically dysfunctional.” Teleprompters and monitors allegedly blacked out during live programs with a studio audience.

TBN was using “amateur” video editing software and Merit staff were unable to use phones in the studio due to poor cellphone coverage, the suit added.

McGraw’s company, Peteski Productions, launched Merit in a joint venture with TBN, which offers religious programming to its TV stations and affiliates across the country.

As the majority owner, TBN was required to provide all back office and production services for Merit. TBN was also obligated to cover the cost of distributing Merit’s programs on its outlets and pay TV providers, the suit said.

The lawsuit claims TBN failed to provide that service, forcing Merit Street to enter its own agreements to get the network carried on TV stations and cable and satellite providers at a cost of $96 million. TBN’s failure to pay led to a number of TV stations to drop Merit Street programming.

The suit also claims TBN failed to deliver promised marketing and promotional services, only providing minimal social media advertising.

TBN missed a $5-million payment to Merit in July 2024, which led the partners to change the terms of their arrangement, the complaint said. Merit became the 70% owner, with TBN taking a 30% stake. But the suit claims TBN still failed to meet its contractual obligations.

The suit said that TBN’s failure to fund Merit forced McGraw and Peteski to provide $25.4 million to finance the network’s operations from December 2024 to May 2025.

The U.S. Department of Justice sued the city of Los Angeles, Mayor Karen Bass and City Council members Monday, calling L.A.’s sanctuary city law “illegal” and asking that it be blocked from being enforced.

The lawsuit, filed in California’s Central District federal court by the Trump Administration, said the country is “facing a crisis of illegal immigration” and that its efforts to address it “are hindered by Sanctuary Cities such as the City of Los Angeles, which refuse to cooperate or share information, even when requested, with federal immigration authorities.”

Over the last month, immigration agents have descended on Southern California, arresting more than 1,600 immigrants and prompting furious protests in downtown Los Angeles, Paramount and other communities. According to the lawsuit, L.A.’s refusal to cooperate with federal immigration authorities since June 6 has resulted in “lawlessness, rioting, looting, and vandalism.”

“The situation became so dire that the Federal Government deployed the California National Guard and United States Marines to quell the chaos,” the lawsuit states. “A direct confrontation with federal immigration authorities was the inevitable outcome of the Sanctuary City law.”

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi called the city’s sanctuary policies “the driving cause of the violence, chaos, and attacks on law enforcement that Americans recently witnessed in Los Angeles.”

“Jurisdictions like Los Angeles that flout federal law by prioritizing illegal aliens over American citizens are undermining law enforcement at every level — it ends under President Trump,” Bondi said in a statement Monday.

Bass did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In recent weeks, she has pushed back against the Trump Administration’s portrayal of L.A. as a city enveloped in violence, saying that immigration agents are the ones sowing chaos, terrorizing families and harming the city’s economy.

“To characterize what is going on in our city as a city of mayhem is just an outright lie,” Bass said earlier this month. “I’m not going to call it an untruth. I’m not going to sugarcoat it. I’m going to call it for what it is, which is a lie.”

L.A.’s sanctuary city law was proposed in early 2023, long before Trump’s election, but finalized in the wake of his victory in November.

Under the ordinance, city employees and city property may not be used to “investigate, cite, arrest, hold, transfer or detain any person” for the purpose of immigration enforcement. An exception is made for law enforcement investigating serious offenses.

The ordinance bars city employees from seeking out information about an individual’s citizenship or immigration status unless it is needed to provide a city service. They also must treat data or information that can be used to trace a person’s citizenship or immigration status as confidential.

In the lawsuit, federal prosecutors allege that the city’s ordinance and other policies intentionally discriminate against the federal government by “treating federal immigration authorities differently than other law enforcement agents,” by restricting access to property and to individual detainees, by prohibiting contractors and sub-contractors from providing information, and by “disfavoring federal criminal laws that the City of Los Angeles has decided not to comply with.”

“The Supremacy Clause prohibits the City of Los Angeles and its officials from singling out the Federal Government for adverse treatment—as the challenged law and policies do—thereby discriminating against the Federal Government,” the lawsuit says. “Accordingly, the law and policies challenged here are invalid and should be enjoined.”

Trump’s Department of Justice contends that L.A.’s Sanctuary City ordinance goes much further than similar laws in other jurisdictions, by “seeking to undermine the Federal Government’s immigration enforcement efforts.”

The lawsuit also cites a June 10 meeting in which council members grilled Police Chief Jim McDonnell about his department’s handling of the immigration raids. During that session, Councilmember Imelda Padilla, who represents a heavily Latino district in the San Fernando Valley, asked McDonnell if the LAPD would consider warning warn council members about impending raids.

“Chief McDonnell correctly identified that request for what it was: ‘obstruction of justice,’” the lawsuit states.

The federal filing comes as the city’s elected officials are weighing their own lawsuit against the Trump administration, one aimed at barring immigration agents from violating the constitutional rights of their constituents.

The City Council is scheduled to meet Tuesday to ask City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto to prioritize “immediate legal action” to protect L.A. residents from being racially profiled or unlawfully searched or detained.

Bass has been outspoken about the harm she says the immigration raids have been inflicting on her city, saying they have torn families apart and created a climate of fear at parks, churches, shopping areas and other locations. The city was peaceful, she said, until federal agents began showing up at Home Depots, parking lots and other locations.

“I want to tell him to stop the raids,” she said earlier this month. “I want to tell him that this is a city of immigrants. I want to tell him that if you want to devastate the economy of the city of Los Angeles, then attack the immigrant population.”

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is suing Fox News for defamation, alleging that the news outlet intentionally manipulated its coverage to give the appearance that the governor lied about a phone call with President Trump.

The governor’s demand for $787 million in punitive damages escalates his aggressive effort to challenge misinformation. The lawsuit, announced Friday, places Newsom at the forefront of the political proxy war between Democrats and Republicans over the press by calling out an outlet that many in his party despise.

“By disregarding basic journalistic ethics in favor of malicious propaganda, Fox continues to play a major role in the further erosion of the bedrock principles of informed representative government,” the suit states. “Setting the record straight and confronting Fox’s dishonest practices are critical to protecting democracy from being overrun by disinformation and lies.”

Newsom, a potential presidential candidate, said he decided to sue in part because Fox failed to change after admitting in a legal settlement two years ago to spreading falsehoods about the 2020 presidential election.

In response to Newsom’s lawsuit, Fox criticized the California governor, accusing him of undercutting the 1st Amendment.

“Gov. Newsom’s transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him. We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed,” Fox News said in a statement Friday morning.

The case stems from comments Trump made about a phone call with Newsom as tensions heated up between the two leaders over immigration raids and the president’s decision to deploy the National Guard to the streets of Los Angeles.

Trump told reporters on June 10 that he spoke with Newsom “a day ago.”

“Called him up to tell him, got to do a better job, he’s doing a bad job,” Trump said. “Causing a lot of death and a lot of potential death.”

Newsom immediately rejected Trump’s timeline on social media.

The governor had already spoken publicly about talking to Trump on the phone late in the night on June 6 in California, which was early June 7 for Trump on the East Coast. Newsom said the National Guard was never discussed during that call. They didn’t talk again, he said.

“There was no call,” Newsom posted on X. “Not even a voicemail. Americans should be alarmed that a President deploying Marines onto our streets doesn’t even know who he’s talking to.”

Newsom’s lawyers allege in the complaint that by making the call seem more recent, Trump could suggest they discussed the deployment of troops to Los Angeles, which they had not.

Trump attempted to fire back at Newsom through Fox and shared a screenshot of his call log with anchor John Roberts. The log showed that a phone call occurred on June 7 and provided no evidence of a call on June 9 as Trump claimed.

“It is impossible to know for certain whether President Trump’s distortion was intentionally deceptive or merely a result of his poor cognitive state, but Fox’s decision to cover up for the President’s false statement cannot be so easily dismissed,” the complaint states.

Newsom’s legal team said Roberts initially misrepresented the situation to viewers “to obscure President Trump’s false statement of fact.”

Then during an evening broadcast on June 10, Fox News host Jesse Watters showed a video of Trump’s comments about the phone call but omitted the president saying that it happened “a day ago.” The edit made it appear that Newsom alleged the two never spoke at all.

“Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?” Watters then asked.

A banner at the bottom of the screen during the segment claimed “Gavin lied about Trump’s call.”

Newsom’s lawyers said Fox “willfully distorted the facts” and defamed Newsom to tens of millions of people.

“Fox advanced this lie about Governor Newsom out of a desire to harm him politically,” the complaint states.

Newsom is particularly attuned to his critics on Fox, a conservative-leaning television network that he describes as the epicenter of a right-wing media ecosystem that misleads the public to benefit Trump and his allies. Similar to reports of Trump watching CNN, the governor regularly follows Fox political coverage. He pays close attention to the outlet’s assessment of his leadership.

Fox commentators and opinion hosts, such as Watters, are given a wide berth to express their views, even when they contradict the reporting of its nonpartisan correspondents. They aggressively defend Trump and his policies, while often casting California as a failed state with incompetent leadership.

But Newsom has also benefited from Fox and used his appearances on the network to brandish his image as a brawler for Democrats and his standing as a potential future presidential candidate.

Fox hosted a much talked about debate between Newsom and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2023. The California governor also participated in a sit-down interview with Sean Hannity, which drew praise from within and outside of his party.

During a talk on the social media website Substack on Friday, Newsom said he started going on Fox to disrupt propaganda and the network’s narrative about Democrats.

“I have a high threshold for the bulls— on Fox, is the point,” Newsom said. “I wouldn’t do this unless I felt they really did cross the line.”

The amount of the governor’s request for damages was a subtle dig at the outlet.

Fox agreed two years ago to pay Dominion Voting Systems $787 million to drop a lawsuit related to the network’s false claims that voting machines were manipulated to help President Biden win the 2020 election. The news organization settled the case rather than put its executives and on-air talent on the witness stand in a high-profile trial.

Fox faces a similar lawsuit from Smartmatic, a Boca Raton, Fla.-based voting machine company that claims its business had been hurt because of the network’s reporting.

The news outlet has maintained that reporting on Trump’s fraud claims was newsworthy and protected by the 1st Amendment. Barring a settlement, the case could go to trial next year.

In a letter to Fox, Newsom’s lawyers said they will voluntarily dismiss the governor’s suit if the outlet retracts its claims that he lied about speaking to Trump.

“We expect that you will give the same airtime in retracting these falsehoods as you spent presenting and amplifying them,” his lawyers stated. “Further, Mr. Watters and Fox News must issue a formal on-air apology for the lie you have spread about Governor Newsom.”

The governor said any damages he might receive from the lawsuit, punitive or otherwise, would go to charity.

Times staff writer Stephen Battaglio contributed to this report.

California Governor Gavin Newsom has filed a $787m defamation lawsuit against Fox News, accusing the network of misrepresenting a phone call between him and US President Donald Trump earlier this month amid immigration arrests and the subsequent protests in Los Angeles.

The complaint was filed on Friday in Delaware Superior Court, the state in which Fox Corp is incorporated.

Newsom spoke by phone with Trump late on June 6 – early June 7 on the East Coast, soon after protests broke out in Los Angeles following federal immigration raids.

Less than 24 hours later, the president sent National Guard troops and 700 Marines to the state, bypassing the governor’s office.

In an interview with NBC News on June 8, Newsom said that he had a civil conversation with the president, but he never brought up sending the National Guard.

“I tried to talk about LA, he wanted to talk about all these other issues,” Newsom said.

“He never once brought up the National Guard,” he added.

Newsom said he did not speak with Trump again, and confirmed this after Trump falsely told reporters on June 10 that he had spoken with the governor “a day ago”.

The suit alleged that the network had a “willingness to protect President Trump from his own false statements by smearing his political opponent Governor Newsom in a dispute over when the two last spoke during a period of national strife”.

The complaint said Fox nonetheless made a misleading video clip and multiple false statements about the timing of the last call, acting with actual malice in an effort to brand Newsom a liar and curry favour with Trump.

“Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him?” Watters said on June 10 on his show, Jesse Watters Primetime, according to the complaint.

Watters’s report was accompanied by a chyron, a banner caption along the bottom of a TV screen, that said “Gavin Lied About Trump’s Call,” the complaint added.

According to the complaint, Fox’s claim that Newsom lied was “calculated to provoke outrage and cause Governor Newsom significant harm” by making people less likely to support his causes, donate to his campaigns, or vote for him in elections.

“Gov. Newsom’s transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him. We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed,” a spokesperson for Fox News told Al Jazeera in an email.

In a follow-up, Al Jazeera asked Fox if Watters and his production team fact-checked claims about the phone call before speaking about it – which is industry standard – but the network did not provide clarification.

Newsom’s punitive damages request is nearly identical to the $787.5m that Fox paid in 2023 to settle Dominion Voting Systems’ lawsuit over alleged vote-rigging in the 2020 US presidential election.

To prevail in his lawsuit, Newsom would have to show Fox acted with actual malice, meaning it knew its statements were false or had reckless disregard for their truth.

According to the New York Times, Newsom would drop the lawsuit if Fox issued a retraction and host Jesse Watters apologised on-air for saying the governor lied about his call with Trump.

The governor’s office told Al Jazeera that it would not comment because Newsom is pursuing the lawsuit in a personal capacity and not through the office.

In an emailed statement, Newsom said, “If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump’s behalf, it should face consequences – just like it did in the Dominion case. I believe the American people should be able to trust the information they receive from a major news outlet. Until Fox is willing to be truthful, I will keep fighting against their propaganda machine.”

Out of Trump’s playbook

Newsom’s lawsuit comes as Trump has gone after news organisations that have been critical of him. He reached a $15m settlement with ABC News after the network made in an inaccurate claim that a jury found Trump liable for rape in the civil case involving E Jean Carroll, rather than sexual assault.

The White House also recently went after the network when former White House correspondent Terry Moran called White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller a “world-class hater”. Moran was later suspended and subsequently dismissed from the network.

Trump also sued CBS News for $20bn for the editing of a 60 Minutes interview with his Democratic rival Kamala Harris, which was reportedly mediated into a settlement agreement of $20m with parent company Paramount Global, causing concern in the news division. Paramount has a pending merger with Skydance.

Trump has also slashed funding for public media, which the White House alleged was “radical, woke propaganda disguised as ‘news’”.